Talk:Electric organ/Archive 1

Irrelevance
Talking so much about the use of electronic organs in churches -!?- in the Description is absolutely irrelevant and pointless. Someone should correct it.

[...]even a congregation that could afford a modest pipe organ may instead opt for a digital organ that simulates a much larger pipe organ than they could afford.

Lustforlife 18:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe it's "irrelevant and pointless," as churches do probably make up the majority of electronic organ purchases. Most schools and universities will purchase pipe organs for performance halls and settle with electronic organs just for practice. Of course, individuals will also purchase electronic organs because a pipe organ is too costly, but I'd still be willing to bet that churches (and other religious organizations) are the majority of electronic organ purchases.

I think it's fine to leave it as it is.

- SuperOctave 28 November, 2006

Commercial links abound!
Almost every external link that was here pointed to a commercial site. Please see WP:EL before adding links to outside sites. Joyous | Talk 14:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

- The Schober link was solely historical. The company has been out of business for 20 years and the site linked to is non-commercial. I see no problem at WP:EL. Maybe you should do some selective reverting? --Nostradamus


 * If you feel that link should be restored, feel free to do so. Joyous | Talk 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that the Technics company has not been mentioned. I may be wrong, but surely this company has made several good instruments and should be mentioned in this article, if only for it's historical interest, in addition to the commercial links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukbeccie (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Technics (brand) is included in the referenced List of electronic organ makers. -Patrug (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Aren't exaggerated all those references to Allen and Rodgers organs? Anyone agrees to that? There are many old companies as well and some claims about e.g. "acoustic portrait" technology are not correct cause Allen talks about a convolution reverb, no reference to binaural or transaural characteristics of the room. --82.61.7.59 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The text is somewhat better now. -Patrug (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Value of old electronic organs
Even the best old electronic console or spinet organ is practically worthless since the advent of microchips and digital synthesizing and audio sampling. If you've anything but a Hammond, your best bet for getting rid of the beast taking up half a wall in your livingroom is to post an ad for a "Free organ, you haul" and maybe someone will pick it up to inflict on their child whom they want to learn to play the piano. Most of the time, if your electronic organ is the vacuum tube type, it'll be impossible to give away even if 100% operational. When my grandfather died, he had an early all solid-state console organ from the 1970s with "Band in a box" with drum synth, compact cassette player/recorder and an internal rotating Leslie speaker. Quite the nice unit but zero cash value because it wasn't a Hammond. Someone who's daughter was taking piano lessons was happy to haul it away for free. He'd had several electronic console organs over the years, I think the last may have been the second that wasn't a vacuum tube type.

Fair use rationale for Image:Console organ.jpg
Image:Console organ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Organ Musical Skill?
"While this meant that the electronic organ required greater musical skills of the organist than the reed organ had, the second manual and the pedalboard along with the expression pedal greatly enhanced playing, far surpassing the reed organ's limited capabilities." This statement is not necessarily true. The addition of manuals does nothing to the skill required to play, only in adjustment of hand positions. Also, reed organs did have expression control, just not in the form of pedal. Pedal boards also existed in many reed organs. This paragraph makes it sound as if all reed organs were single rank and one manual, which was not the case -- this was only the most common, most affordable option.

- J. Zylstra 66.172.101.250 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edited text to be more moderate. It should be reasonable now. -Patrug (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)